George Bush recently made the rounds promoting his new book, "Decision Points." In this book he (apparently) talks about his second-thoughts and moral tugs-of-war over things like the invasion of Iraq, water-boarding, and the financial collapse of 2007-2008 (and on into 2009).
On water-boarding, he says he approved the decision, responding "Damn right" to the question of whether he approved it directly. Ironically, it's the same line fictional Colonel Nathan R Jessup used in "A Few Good Men." discussing whether he approved a "code red" to beat a soldier (unintionally causing his death).
On the question of the financial collapse, Mr. Bush replied that he was "totally blindsided." He went on to suggest that if Congress had passed his reforms for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the problems might have been avoided.
In both cases, I am reminded why this man was so manifestly and absolutely repudiated in 2006 and 2008. I am also reminded why eight years of colossal mismanagement and political deceit isn't easily undone in twenty months. Bush came across as he always has, saccharin, fake and clearly politically calculated in every reply.
On the question of water-boarding, many people felt Bush had to have approved it or some in the White House would have been risk. But more, if he approved it then he personally approved torture as defined by treaties to which the US is a signatory. His "Damned Right" response was, to this man's eye, intended to convey a "tough talk" hombre. He was using the line used in a movie, much like "Wanted Dead or Alive" about Osama Bin Laden - and I think he did so purposefully. He carries the attitude of "screw anyone and anything who doesn't like it", the same cavalier, uncaring, tin-ear which whistled while Iraq burned under excessive civilian deaths brought about (in part) by US forces NOT cooperating with locals - a policy which changed under David Patreaus. But also a policy which Bush clearly, and as supported by this same bellicose, cultural ethno-centric attitude reply of "Damn Right", which Bush clearly didn't support changing. In short, Bush showed once again that success in Iraq was something done in spite of him, not because of him. His comments about being blind-sided by Abu Ghraib weren't ones of distress or concern about the conduct of troops, but as reported by Bob Woodward years ago, were about the political fallout. In short, he didn't care much about the treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib, a problem which absolutely destroyed Iraqi support and confidence in the US regime and presence, just like he didn't care about water-boarding prisoners in Gitmo. These parallels point clearly to a man without moral compunction when it came to dealing with citizens of other countries. He was mean, mendacious, needlessly, and perhaps illegally, negligent in looking after their welfare. Some shock that Americans increasingly found him disconnected, base and churlish. His comments on water-boarding reinforce that image, and they do so correctly.
On his comments on being blind-sided by the financial collapse, I have only a few words for Mr. Bush. If you were, you were the only one in the entire country. Everyone, and I mean everyone who was even marginally competent knew that a huge problem loomed, that our mortgage bond market had run wild, had been misused and abused, and the only question was not if a massive "correction" would happen, but when. You, sir, spent eight years denying there were problems, suggesting that "booster shots" (your term for stimulus spending approved by Republicans in 2006), were sufficient. Your comments about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae sound like scape-goating of the worst sort. First, you were a chief advocate for pushing FM/FM to have to accept any non-conforming loans, so you hold the blame for their contribution to the problems, but even more, since 2/3rds of the bond market collapse came from PLS (Private Label Securities), unless you're a lack-witted fool, you know that FM/FM weren't the genesis or even the major catalyst. Yet, here you are trying to suggest they were. Why (I'd ask)? Except that I know the answer. You, like your GOP brethren, are trying hard to blame the government for the collapse, when the government was the tail of the dog. You gladly wagged FM/FM around to your benefit (meaning so that banks could make LOTS of money), and you fiddled your time away, not warning of a looming disaster - a disaster you should have seen coming. That you didn't either meant you were completely, blithely ignorant of something which devastated the country, meaning you were asleep when you should have been aware. This is yet again something which points out why the voters tossed your party to the curb in 2006 and 2008, because you knew nothing, heard nothing, saw nothing - when everyone with even a small bit of knowledge saw 401(k)'s being raided, saw banks writing loans to people who had no income, saw people raiding their home equity just to get by. In short, you saw nothing standing on the beach in front of the tidal wave, when your job was to act as the warning siren and you had all the assets, all the warning systems you needed to see it. You were responsible to protect the nation, but your attitude about government was that government was bad and couldn't (and even shouldn't) protect anyone, so you effectively let everything go. It sure seems like you were hoping it wouldn't happen on your watch. You sounded no alarms. Now you want to come out and pretend you didn't know in one breath, and in the next say you did know and tried to get FM/FM to stop? Which way was it?
It all seems like revisionist history to me. It seems like an attempt to paint yourself in a more positive light, and to me at least, it simply reinforced that you were above all motivated by political image, were dishonest, untrustworthy, greedy and mendacious. It reminds me why, even on days when Obama fails to stand up for what should be done to rescue our country from corporate greed, why I am very glad you are no longer President. It's too bad the rest of the country forgot just what your ilk are like.
I found the comments of former Chancellor Schroeder of Germany to be insightful, and more plausible than our former President's account of events.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8124170/Gerhard-Schroeder-accuses-George-W-Bush-of-not-telling-truth-in-memoirs.html
The conditions under which Schroeder claims to have promised support for a war in Iraq are more consistent and make sense in ways that 'Ws' account does not.
I found the observations about our President's intellect to parallel statements made in Tony Blair's book, and in interviews which do not praise 'Ws' intellect either.
"Mr Schroeder responded to Mr Bush's claims, accusing him of "not telling the truth".
In a statement, he confirmed that he had told Mr Bush he would "stand reliably on the side of the US" if it was confirmed that Iraq was sheltering those responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks.
"But this link, as it became clear during 2002, was false and contrived. This goes for reasons [for the invasion] given by Bush and [then vice-president Dick] Cheney too.
"As we know today, the Bush administration's reasons for the Iraq war were based on lies."
The reaction of former Schroeder aides was scathing. "We noticed that the intellectual reach of the president of the most important nation at the time was exceptionally low," said Uwe-Karsten Heye, Mr Schroeder's spokesman at the time told German news channel N24.
"For this reason it was difficult to communicate with him. He had no idea what was happening in the world. He was so fixated on being a Texan. I think he knew every longhorn in Texas."
I suppose we shoult be grateful that the good Chancellor never had to contend with the intellectual reach of a popsie like Palin. We might have been kicked out of NATO temporarily.
I believe it was Mitterand who called the intellectually charged that Reagan was an idiot; we expect that sort of candor from the French. Not so much from the Brits ("Poor dear, there's nothing between his ears."--British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, re Ronald Reagan) or the Germans, now re 'W'.
Reagan's near-daily blythe errors of fact were considered amusing. W didn't have the charm to make what he did anything other than bloody-minded.
ONLY those who are comfortable ignoring factual content are going to like W's book, and only those who are comfortable ignoring factual content are going to be hapopy with the right wing echo chamber or the current crop of political candidates-elect.
I don't think W will do very well, long term, in rehabbing his reputation as one of th very very worst presidents in history.
But that epithet does go a long way to explaining why the right is trying to tack that soubriquet on Obama - it reminds people otherwise of how bad the conservative administrations and legislative assemblies have been.
I find it interesting how when the Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008 you and DG are quick to say it was because the public knew all about how bad Bush was and therefore voted Democrat. But in 2010 the Democrats took the worst beating of any party since 1948 and it had nothing to do with the public disliking the health care bill or trying to stop the cap and trade nonsense. It just seems that anyone following left of center policies can do no wrong in your eyes.
ReplyDeleteTuck,
ReplyDeleteI know you to be a thoughtful, well-meaning reader and commenter, and I want to reiterate that so that you understand my reply is said with that from the outset.
That said, you know very well I crticize Obama routinely. In fact, and consequenlty your comment surprises me, I criticized Obama directly in this post! So, I guess I'm a little take aback.
Let me be clear, Obama is a weak leader, very weak. He could take a lesson or two from Bush about not trying to be too kind to your political opposition because, frankly, they're not going to recognize it or thank you for it. Obama has been far too survile, far too professorial/senatorial, both toward Republicans and frankly toward the public. He needs to call a spade a spade and move ahead.
On health care, he started out 90% of the way toward the Republicans, and so we got basically the Republican version of health care reform, rather than a comprimise between Democratic and Republican positions, a comprimise he NEVER had to engage in anyway with the Democratic majorities. He should have beat the hell out of Lieberman, gone to Connecticut and accused him of being a traitor to his pinciples and to the people who elected him when he ran telling Connecticut voters that while he was running as an independent, he was a Democrat at heart. I'd have said, "Oh yeah? Well, Mr. Vice Presidential candidate from the Democratic Party in 2000, it's high damned time you stopped sucking up to Republicans, to corporate interests, and BACKED YOUR DAMNED PARTY! It's time for you to lead and prove you are who you said you'd be."
But, to be clear Tuck, I do not support rolling back health care, anything but. It hardly went far enough, and the majority of Americans agree with that. The "solution" which was passed was no solution at all, and Obama (and the Dems) deserve 100% of the blame. Oh, sure, the GOP stood in lock-step opposition to helping the country even pass what was essentially their version of health care reform in 2004 simply to SPITE Obama, but the Dems are responsible, the Repubs didn't have the power to stop it.
ReplyDeleteYet, Tuck this is about Bush, this is about the fact that the Dems were tossed out because they were seen as TOO MUCH LIKE BUSH, TOO MUCH LIKE THE BUMS THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO REPLACE BUT DIDN'T DIFFERENTIATE THEMSELVES FROM.
In short Tuck, the Bush Administration, one which you've criticized but never repudiated, was rightly reviled. Do YOU support how Bush handled Iraq? Do YOU support how he handled banking regulation and oversight, Do you think he was paying attention, do you think the collapse was obviously coming?
This post wasn't about Obama - not exactly - it was about the fact that this man who claims to be "tough" instead proved to be effite, aloof, and uncaring about tragedy. He proved to be uninvolved and unaware of the reasons for our failures in Iraq, in fact perhaps being complicit in the main reasons for our failures by being cavalier about civilian injuries.
He also proved, despite being the "CEO President" to be clueless about what was going on in the economy. He seemed to be worried more about putting personal friends (like Harvey Pitt - who HE put in charge of Fannie Mae - and who was an abject failure) in charge of important positions - such as Mike Brown at FEMA -- rather than being aware of the true nature of problems (off-shoring, job loss, flat wages), he promised us everything was ok when it so clearly, obviously and massively WAS NOT.
So while you may want to focus on Obama, you do have to remember we had 8 years of this political charliatan, and I am offended that 2 years after he was tossed out on his ear with the lowest approval rating since Nixon (and in some cases worse) - a man who betrayed his office, he (and Cheney) are now out trying to rehabillitate themselves.
What I am equally troubled by is that we have these Tea Party goofballs bitching about violating the Constitution while asking stupid, incipid questions about where in the Constitution it gives the power to Congress to levy or spend - asked by the Tea Party's darling Michelle Bachmann, a woman with not only a law degree, but an ADVANCED secondary law specialty - asking a question so basic that nearly any high school civics student knows the answer that the Establishment Clause provides the Congress the ability to spend and to oversee such expenditures. Her question was so daffy that Tim Geithner truly was taken aback at the sheer stupidity of it, YET, these same sorts of people, from Sharon Angle to Christine O'Donnell were (sort of) voted right back in. I say sort of, because in fact what you JUST voted back in, what you hugest landslide since 1948 just did, was return the likes of George Bush and his catastrophic mismanagement attitude, right back to power.
So, Tuck, this isn't about Obama, it's a commentary on Bush's ironic self-exposure, but as well, it's a commentary on the short-term memory disorder of the American public. We forgot just how bad Bush was - he reminded us, but we appear to not have noticed.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, on health care, I'm happy to debate it's merits, which point of health care do you disapprove of? Do you dissapporve of it preventing insurers from dissallowing pre-existing denials for kdis? Do you disapprove of it providing for insurance for those who can't otherwise afford it, or do you disapprove of requiring people to HAVE insurance to expand the pool of payors (as insurance needs to make insurance work) JUST like most states do for car insurance? Not one of these violates the Consitution, not in the slightest. Do you disapprove of the federal government requiring actions by states to get money, just like they do for road funding? I'm happy to debate it, but I will NOT do it here. This post wasn't about health care, it was about Bush's book and his attempt to rewrite history, and I'd like to hear whether you think he did a good job in Iraq (a war he ONLY changed course on when it was clear he was going to lose the 2006 election, not after Abu Ghraib, not after vast excalation in sectarian violence), or do you think he did a bang up job monitoring and controlling the economy, an economy which experienced not one but TWO recessions under his watch. The first I don't blame him for, but the second was the WORST economic event in our history, second onlyl to the Great Depression (also caused by rampant speculation and also on the watch of GOP "pro business types). Do you think he did a good job with that? If not, why would you vote to return his partners to power?
ttucker said...
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting how when the Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008 you and DG are quick to say it was because the public knew all about how bad Bush was and therefore voted Democrat.
I would point out to you how high Obama's personal approval rating is compared to Bush's in 2006 and 2008. You are comparing apples and oranges; Obama IS still far far more popular than W.
But in 2010 the Democrats took the worst beating of any party since 1948 and it had nothing to do with the public disliking the health care bill or trying to stop the cap and trade nonsense. It just seems that anyone following left of center policies can do no wrong in your eyes.
I think you have uterly faield to understand the health care reform, or it's reception. Cap and trade is not nonsense. And Obama is following center, not left of center policies. You've just been exposed to so much far from center right wing policies you no longer seem to be able to appreciate the distinction of how much else there is to the left of Obama.
I too am deeply disappointed in Obama. There was an excellent article written for Findlaw.com by John Dean, (linked HERE ) points out that with a strong president in the White House, attempts by Congress to shut down the government haven't been successful, and ultimately have backfired for the party forcing the issue. However, with Mr. Obama in the White House, I fear that the Tea Party nut cases will feel emboldened.
ReplyDeleteWhat Mr. Bush did as president, was, at best, morally reprehensible, especially coming from someone who made such an issue of him being "saved". More likely, many of the things that he did (such as approving torture) violated US and international law. Unfortunately, its unlikely that he will ever stand in the dock and face trial for his misdeeds. (Unless the Spanish can find a way to indict him and he is stupid enough to travel overseas... humm... what a delightful thought, but I digress)
Tuck, if George Bush had been eligible for a third term as president, (Thank God he was not!), do you really think he would have been re-elected? I wonder if the Republican party, looking at the polls in 2008, would have re-nominated him? (cont)
I used to believe that Mr. Bush was an evil person for all of the things he did.. i.e. not caring about anything but his corporate cronies, his cavalier attitude about American soldiers being sacrificed in Iraq to fuel his urge to avenge daddy, his approval of the mistreatment of prisoners... but I no longer believe that. To be evil, he would have to be smart enough to know what he was doing was wrong. I think he's too stupid to know that his actions were morally reprehensible. Although I have only read excerpts from his book, (and I refuse to buy it because I don't want any of my money going to him), what I have read confirms my opinion.
ReplyDeleteToE,
ReplyDeleteWhat I've read of Bush suggests he isn't stupid, but rather, profoundly lazy and happily ignorant. Consequently, he (time and again) handled issues with a dismissive "back of his hand" approach, such as torture. His beliefs (apparently, and per Bob Woodward), that terrorists were "bad", we are the "good guys" and if a few arabs got caught in the middle, so be it, they should have been stopping Bin Laden and then they'd not have had us in their face. He was "here to cut the BS" and to stand up to the world and show them all how tough we are, unlike the pussy Democrats.
That kind of ethno-centrism isn't born necessarily of stupidity. It IS, by contrast, born of ignorance and arrogance. It fails to grasp that arab interests, like western interests, run the gammut of 1,000 different competing causes - and that arabs (as a group) aren't any more responsible for Bin Laden than Oklahomans were for McVeigh. He is smart enough to know, but he frankly just didnt' seem to care. He was always someone who came across as not particularly concerned with "the little people" but rather with himself, his power, and his desires.
I don't call that ignorant, I call it selfish, and I consider selfishness to be kissing cousins to evil. Evil is simply the decision by mostly good people to be willing to sacrifice principle in the name of the "greater good." Much evil has been for these kinds of reasons, no one believes they are on the "evil" side, it's just one side is willing to go to far greater depths of unethical depravity than the other, and history normally then rightly judges them as the "evil" side.